In Dubio Pro Reo and presumption of innocence

There is a legal principle that states that in the event that the evidence analysed is insufficient to prove the guilt of an accused person for a criminal offence, the judicial decision must be in his or her favour. This is known as in dubio pro reo. Here we will analyse this concept in depth.

The definition of in dubio pro reo

As we said in the introduction, the principle of in dubio pro reo determines that, if the evidence is not capable of establishing accurately and truthfully that the accused of a crime has committed it, the sentence must be favourable to his or her interests. This is an obligatory rule for judges, magistrates and jury tribunals when deciding on guilt.

By this we mean that the Public Prosecutor's Office and, if there is one, the private prosecution, are obliged to prove the guilt of the accused without any doubt whatsoever. To this end, they may use all the evidence at their disposal.

However, this legal principle does not directly concern any of them. In fact, it is the judge who is obliged to give a verdict in favour of the accused in the case of insufficient evidence.

A literal translation of this concept would be "in case of doubt in favour of the defendant". This phrase is quite defining and is based on the principle of innocence that governs the bulk of the Spanish Penal Code and legal system. So everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Presumption of innocence and in dubio pro reo

The two concepts are often confused unless we are talking to members of the judiciary. However, they are not exactly synonymous. The difference lies in the legal regulation of each.

In this sense, the fact that, in case of doubt, the sentence must always favour the defendant, is a criminal jurisdictional principle. On the other hand, the presumption of innocence is enshrined in Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution.

But there is more. The presumption of innocence determines that no one can be accused of a crime if it is not proven that they have committed it. In other words, it is a right of the defendant that is valued from the beginning of the process. However, according to the definition of in dubio pro reo, we are talking about a legal principle that can only be applied once the evidence against the accused has been analysed.

What does the Supreme Court say about this?

Firstly, that it is a rule subject to interpretation. By this it means, through its case law, that it is not a legal concept that can be used to assess the evidence against a defendant, but merely a principle applicable when the evidence does not indisputably establish the guilt of the defendant.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court also clarifies that the parties may not make use of it. They do not even have the possibility to urge the judge or the Jury Court to deal with the case. So it is entirely up to the judge.

On what values does the principle of in dubio pro reo rest?

Fundamentally, there are two pillars on which the principle that, if there are doubts, the judgement must favour the defendant rests. Let us look at them.

The principle of legality

The principle of legality states that the conduct for which a person is prosecuted must be punishable by law. In other words, it must be considered a crime under the Criminal Code. If this is not the case, the subject cannot be prosecuted in any case.

There is a very obvious example which, by the way, raises a lot of doubts among ordinary people. We are talking about non-compliance with visiting arrangements. Until a few years ago, it was considered a criminal offence and any parent who did not act in accordance with it could be prosecuted. However, the rule changed and the conduct was decriminalised, so that no one can now be criminally convicted for it.

The principle of non-retroactivity in criminal law

Directly related to the previous one. Specifically, the principle of non-retroactivity in criminal law indicates that it is not possible to judge a conduct that was considered a crime some time ago if the law that so indicated was repealed and replaced by another law that does not give it this consideration.

We can take, once again, the example of visiting arrangements. Under the previous law, non-compliance was a criminal offence, but under the current law it is not. So no one can be judged on the basis of the former.

Moreover, this principle also determines that the law that is more favourable to the accused must always be applied. So, if in one law it says that non-compliance with access is a misdemeanour and in the other law it does not give it any consideration, it cannot even be criminally prosecuted.

Conclusions on the term

It has become clear that if there is any doubt about the guilt of a defendant, the judge must always rule in his or her favour. This is a basic principle in our Penal Code that only those who are really guilty should be convicted and that no innocent person should end up in prison. Unfortunately, this has unfortunately happened at different times because it has not been applied correctly.